NATASHA MARRIAN: Expensive talk shop is a banal distraction

The furore over the national dialogue is quickly becoming a fascinating study in distraction. 

While SA faces intractable problems — from shaky foreign relations, a terrifyingly depleted defence force and generals making politically charged statements, to an economy stuck in a stubborn no-growth trap — the country’s top brass have kept the populace suitably distracted by an insignificant but noisy and expensive talk shop.

It marks another opportunity for the ANC to bury its head in the sand and ignore the stark reality that its moral decline is at the heart of the collapse in state services, from municipal to national levels.

What are the chances of the outcomes of the national dialogue being implemented or the process even leading to solid outcomes? None. The process is too messy and will take too long and its lengthy report will be shelved somewhere in the Union Buildings to collect dust. 

Besides, is the National Development Plan, compiled painstakingly by a highly regarded National Planning Commission that President Cyril Ramaphosa chaired, now shelved? It is still widely cited in lofty ministerial and presidential speeches.

In 2016, 101 ANC veterans — among the most respected struggle stalwarts alive at the time — penned a document titled “For the sake of our future”. In it, they outlined the decline in the ANC and the state, and called for far-reaching action to turn the situation around both within the party and the government. It was the height of the campaign against former president Jacob Zuma, which united SA — political parties and civil society — in a call for him to resign. 

The withdrawal of key foundations ahead of the bizarre national convention held over two days last week should have culminated in the postponement of the meeting, but it went ahead warts and all. The Thabo Mbeki Foundation and others that withdrew their participation were key to the entire dialogue — after all, the idea began with them and had its roots in the veterans process in the dying days of the Zuma presidency. 

Their withdrawal is understandable after government in effect took control of the event. The dialogue was clearly hijacked to water down its efficacy and distract SA under the pretence of doing something to address the country’s problems — another box ticked on Ramaphosa’s to-do list.

Ramaphosa’s administration wants to have a tight hold on its main distraction tool. His spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, sought to portray Ramaphosa as a victim when asked whether former president Mbeki was attempting to “rule from the grave” after his foundation’s withdrawal from the dialogue. Incidentally, many of the president’s supporters believe this. 

“One has noted that President Ramaphosa is by far the most publicly criticised and attacked president by his predecessors, which is a slight departure from the sort of unwritten rule in terms of the courtesy that a former president grants to a sitting president,” he told journalists. 

Really? Ramaphosa should know better — he may be at the receiving end of criticism from the ex-convict Zuma, but one should take that as a badge of honour. Criticism from the likes of Malusi Gigaba and Andile Lungisa, both poster children for everything that went wrong with the ANC under Zuma, can also be brushed aside. Mbeki supported the veterans who openly called for Zuma’s resignation back in 2016, and the critique of Zuma from all quarters was far more vociferous than any levelled at Ramaphosa today. And rightly so. 

Perhaps this sense of victimhood is the president’s problem. It may explain why he engages meaningfully only through Magwenya and brief sound bites on doorstops at the many pointless events he attends. This explains why the foundations’ departure was opportune — he feared that on their watch it could morph into a stinging appraisal of his leadership. 

Still, none of this helps him in the long run: his legacy will remain the best president we never had.

• Marrian is Business Day editor at large.